Crl.R.C(MD)No.775 of 2016

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 06.03.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.R.C(MD)No.775 of 2016

Sudalai Eswaran

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

Tirunelveli Town Police Station,

Tirunelveli.

(Crime No.500 of 2013)

...Respondent

Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w

401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records pertaining

to the judgment delivered by the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli in

C.C.No.42 of 2015 vide his judgment dated 31.07.2015, which has been

subsequently modified by the Additional Sessions Judge/III Additional

Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in C.A.No.90 of 2015 vide his judgment,

dated 05.10.2016.

For Petitioner

: Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh

For Respondent

: Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi

Government Advocate (Crl.side)

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.775 of 2016

ORDER

The Petition has been filed to set aside the judgment passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge/III Additional Sessions Court,

Tirunelveli in C.A.No.90 of 2015, dated 05.10.2016, modifying the

judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli in

C.C.No.42 of 2015 vide judgment dated 31.07.2015.

2.The case of the prosecution is that while on 24.05.2013 at

about 5.00 p.m., the victim was going for purchasing goods, due to

previous enmity, the accused scolded her in filthy language and also

pulled her hand and threatened her with dire consequence for not

speaking to him through cell phone. On the complaint lodged by the

victim, the respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime

No.500 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC

and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Harassment of Women Act.

On completion of investigation, the respondent police filed a final report

and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court. Before the

trial Court, prosecution had examined PW1 to PW6 and marked five

documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On the side of the accused, he examined

DW1 and DW2 and marked two documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. On

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.775 of 2016

perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the

petitioner's guilty for the offences under Sections 294(b) of IPC and

Second 4 of Women Harassment Act and insofar as the offence, under

Section 506(ii) of IPC is concerned, he was acquitted. The petitioner

was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for the

offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of

Women Act, and also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and three months

simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, in

default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court

confirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence to six months simple

imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition

of Harassment of Women Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil

revision petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

alleged occurrence was taken place on 24.05.2013 at about 5.00 p.m.

whereas the complaint lodged only on 25.05.2013. PW2 categorically

deposed that she had never seen the occurrence and she was standing far

away from the place of the alleged occurrence. Therefore, the deposition

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.775 of 2016

of victim was not corroborated by any of the witnesses. In fact, the

victim and the petitioner had relationship and it came to the knowledge

of the husband of the victim and as such, a false complaint has been

foisted against the petitioner. It was also categorically admitted by the

victim that they had relationship and the same was proved by